We’re told this week that Washington’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NOAA) had finally crunched its numbers for 2014, and Al Gore is a very happy man, as are the armies of amateur climate experts who take government scientific announcements as gospel.

There’s only one big problem with all of this. I really love dolphins, and all sea life, but at the end of the day, NOAA is still an arm of the US federal government, and therefore, it has the potential to be just as political as any other federally-funded agency.

So why is the government-media-complex pushing so hard again with global warming now?

If anything, this is a public relations war, and one that requires constant damage control and renovation effort. The top two inflated celebrity scientists fronting the UN IPCC public relations drive, Penn State’s Michael Mann and East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit head Phil Jones – have both been exposed long ago as failures and were caught through ‘Climategate’ manipulating data sets in order to fit their own government-funded and highly biased theoretical theses on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Michael Mann was so damaged by Climategate that he eventually went on a legal rampage, attempting to sue his way out of the scandal’s orbit. On top of all this, Mann, the UN’s IPCC rock star ‘climate scientist’, had his fictional “hockey stick” global warming graph thoroughly debunked by multiple scientists and academics – read just one of those critiques here. Mann’s contrived hockey stick graph was made famous by Al Gore’s since discredited 2006 ‘documentary’ entitled, An Inconvenient Truth (a more ironic title couldn’t be found).

“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

Think of the IPCC as a 16th century Vatican who may have believed the earth was flat, even though Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan knew it wasn’t. And just like the church of old and with other institutes of control, Gore and Mann hope to use their modern mythology of global warming in order to monetize guilt with a global regime of carbonized indulgence taxes.

There are a number of obvious fundamental flaws with the latest government sermon which claims that 2014 was “the hottest year ever”, and whether or not man-made global warming theory is anything more than that – a theory (and a well-funded one at that). Climate Depot’s Marc Morano adds here, “There are dueling global datasets – surface temperature records and satellite records – and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill’ and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records.”

Also, the US surface temperature measurement network of stations has many inherent flaws, and may not be as accurate as IPCC orthodox clerics would like it to be due to a number of issues including heat pollution.

Bottom line: this latest announcement is the latest in a long line of parlour tricks – and the parlour trick is a time-honored government tradition.

Hail Consensus!

What about the scientific ‘consensus’? We hear a lot about it, but in reality, it does not exist anymore than 9 out 10 dentists say fluoride is good for your teeth. Scientist Art Robinson decided to ask top scientists throughout the US, Europe and beyond, what they thought of this supposed “consensus” that’s Al Gore and others promoted so heavily between 2005-2012. Thus far, Robinson has already collected 31,487 signatures from scientists to help form The Petition Project, which testifies that, “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

Those who have bought into the modern Armageddon-based mythology of global warming (rebranded later as ‘climate change’) will likely use the highly pejorative term, ‘climate denier’ to describe me, or anyone else who dares to challenge the Gore orthodoxy, something akin to an apostate by today’s collective climate fundamentalist standards. They will also conflate the theory of climate change with real toxic pollution, as if these are one in the same thing (when clearly they are not). It’s no surprise then that the inventors of the term ‘climate denial’ specifically chose that term to reflect the term ‘holocaust denial’ in order to parlay additional negative connotations, automatically insinuating that to be in denial equates to a crime. Again, another parlour trick, using a NLP crowbar to try and administrate a new politically correct term.

Like the term ‘conspiracy theorist’, the term ‘climate denial’ was created for the same reason ‘conspiracy theorist’ was invented – as a deadly little pc linguistic widget designed for lazy commentators and self-appointed cultural gatekeepers who wish to shut down and curtail any rational or genuine scientific debate on the subject. Closet collectivists, shills for central government policy and other creatures of the nanny state, will always use these words and terms to avoid having to actually dig their heals in.

No, I am not a climate denier. Far from it; I love the climate and the environment too, but I also recognize that our climate does change – in fact, it always has, and always will – even without mankind’s (and Al Gore’s) input. I am an opponent of government propaganda, social engineering and the modern technocracy. Anyone who is so naive as to believe that they would not fudge-up their figures and theses in exactly the same way the federal government constantly fudges down its unemployment figures (5% we were last told, ‘lol’ as the kids say) and inflation figures. should ponder the term “jobless recovery” for one moment, and you’ll see what I mean.

That’s what appears to have happened this time too. For reasons not confined to job security, or funding, NOAA seems to have left out some important qualifiers in what can hardly be described as a definitive declaration of global warming.

Science author Bob Tisdale explains,”According to NOAA definitions, global surface temperatures for 2014 were “More Unlikely Than Likely” the highest on record, but they failed to note that on the main page of their State of the Climate report. NOAA used a specific ENSO index to claim that El Niño conditions did not exist in 2014, when at least one other index says El Niño conditions existed. And, NOAA failed to discuss the actual causes of the elevated global sea surface temperatures in 2014, while making it appear that there was a general warming of the surfaces of the global oceans.”

“NOAA never stated specifically that 2014’s record high surface temperatures were a result of human-induced global warming, but they implied it… thus, all the hoopla. NOAA has omitted key discussions within that report, which biases it toward human-induced global warming. In other words, the NOAA State of the Climate report was misleading. NOAA has once again shown it is a political entity, not a scientific one. And, that’s a damn shame. The public needs openness from NOAA about climate; we do not need to be misled by politically motivated misdirection and misinformation.”

In a world full of hypocrisy and corruption, some media presenters and ‘journalists’ simply see the climate debate as that one safe place where everyone should be in agreement. By purchasing their ticket on the climate bandwagon, they think they’re being compassionate and humanitarian. But it’s not humanitarian at all, it’s political. Members of the media who feel it’s enough to simply parrot the federal government line on global warming, or regurgitate the New York Times front page spread today – are as guilty as bought-and-paid-for scientists like Mann and Jones, and could be considered journalistic failures on this subject.

The irony of this debate is that it’s much more likely, if you follow actual science (as opposed to multi-million dollar federally funded, contrived computer modelling projections), that the earth is currently slipping in to a global cooling phase. On the whole, a drop in temperatures is many times deadlier for mankind on this planet than a rise in temperature is. If you cannot figure out why global cooling is more dangerous, then perhaps you should watch the filmsThe Colony, andSnowpiercer, and maybe think just a little bit harder about where your food really comes from.

Is man’s CO2 production warming the planet’s atmosphere? Certainly it is, but it’s likely to be so tiny that it would be (and is) actually impossible measure, and so small that it would be almost impossible to isolate as a number. A drop in the bucket at best, and at least – insignificant – in terms of pushing up global temperatures. In truth, the primary driver of the earth’s climate was, is and always will be: the sun. Overwhelmingly, solar cycles determine our planet’s climate cycles, and anyone who is not paying attention to this, will miss the real event horizon – when it finally arrives.

Political gravy trains, financial gravy trains. Scientists and academics who have already pledged their allegiance to the cult of climate change are too busy notice, preoccupied with filling out their federal research grant applications for next year – hoping to keep their job, the house, and ultimately, their reputations.

It’s easy to join the climate congregation and enjoy a sense of safety in numbers, but it’s a lot harder to face up to the truth: that we’ve been played by the same charlatans who’ve always played us.